Newsgroups: comp.ai.philosophy
Path: cantaloupe.srv.cs.cmu.edu!das-news2.harvard.edu!news2.near.net!howland.reston.ans.net!pipex!sunsite.doc.ic.ac.uk!uknet!festival!edcogsci!jeff
From: jeff@aiai.ed.ac.uk (Jeff Dalton)
Subject: Re: RACE and IQ
Message-ID: <Czzq4z.CJM@cogsci.ed.ac.uk>
Sender: usenet@cogsci.ed.ac.uk (C News Software)
Nntp-Posting-Host: bute-alter.aiai.ed.ac.uk
Organization: AIAI, University of Edinburgh, Scotland
References: <jqbCzKCuM.JII@netcom.com> <Czu52n.Buu@festival.ed.ac.uk> <jqbCzus0o.Dow@netcom.com>
Date: Mon, 28 Nov 1994 18:31:47 GMT
Lines: 24

In article <jqbCzus0o.Dow@netcom.com> jqb@netcom.com (Jim Balter) writes:
>In article <Czu52n.Buu@festival.ed.ac.uk>,
>Chris Malcolm <cam@castle.ed.ac.uk> wrote:
>>In article <jqbCzKCuM.JII@netcom.com> jqb@netcom.com (Jim Balter) writes:

>>>There is currently no way to translate statistical differences in behavior
>>>among races or other social groups into genetic differences.  So claims of
>>>genetically produced differences in cognitive skills between such groups are
>>>unsupportable.
>>
>>The really important question is whether this is a question of
>>principle, or just an accident of current experimental technology. You
>>phrase it as though it were contingent, but you seem to suggest it has
>>an importance worthy of principled impossibility.
>
>[...]
>    When bad science has consistently been used to
>derive a particular result that is then used to justify particular social
>policies, it seems to me rather naive, bordering on disingenuous, to point out
>that *in principle* good science might lead to the same result.

Hear! hear!

-- jd
